I will amend my thoughts on the draft ever happening again. Yes, it's still on the books. So's a whole lot of stuff no politician would even consider mentioning in a speech let alone reactivating.

After the one percent has gotten everybody hungry and hurting and just a little bit more cowed, yes. Then they'll start drafting without worrying about city wide protests and massive civil disobedience.

That's what, ten, twenty years off? So okay, it isn't never. Just not this decade. 2030, maybe. Got a lot of uppity middle classers who need to get their minds right first.

you must be joking wrote:Are you in favor of allowing women to be in front line combat positions?

Now that President Obama has rhetorically abolished war, I'm not sure why they would need women as bomb fodder in front line combat. Targeted killing drone operators, "trainers", and "force multipliers" are the future in the military.

Ok, now that I've got some responses to my query, I'd like to pose another question. Do you know the military definition of the word "Combat" or "Combat Operations"? To be precise, the military definition of those words, or how they are thought of in military parlance is: Combat or Combat Operations is defined as when our troops assault or defend a fixed position against an enemy of similar strength and capabilities. It is NOT when you are facing an insurgent attack of limited strength. It is the kind of fighting in WWI or WWII. Band of Brothers stuff. That's not to say that those who face getting shot at in todays wars or seeing the people in their unit getting killed are owed any less of a debt by the rest of us. They dammed well earned our respect for what they have endured.That said, their is a difference.

Now, with that definition in mind, do those of you who want women in combat feel the same way about it? As I said before, if women are cleared for combat, there is no reason why they can't be drafted for military service and be put on the front lines along with the men.

Speaking of the front lines, do you know that there where a number of men who endured the front lines for up to 120 days in a row during WWII? Living in foxholes just yards away from the enemy, often suffering from dysentary, malaria, and other nasty stuff. Sometimes even the wounded being given guns and told to defend themselves the best they can as the unit faced the possibility of being overrun.

In Korea, or in Viet Nam, many in the rear of the American military who were clerk typists,worked in the supply chain, or cooks were given a gun and put on transportation to the front lines as ultimately everyone is considered infantry when the need arises. And both of those were considered police actions.

you must be joking wrote:To be precise, the military definition of those words, or how they are thought of in military parlance is: Combat or Combat Operations is defined as when our troops assault or defend a fixed position against an enemy of similar strength and capabilities. It is NOT when you are facing an insurgent attack of limited strength. It is the kind of fighting in WWI or WWII. Band of Brothers stuff.

Um, yea, no shit. I'm curious what the issue is here. I don't want anyone to get hurt or die in combat. Male or female. Is it somehow less painful if a man dies in war than a woman?

Mean Scenester wrote:My vocabulary is insufficient to express how little I give a shit about the "controversy" surrounding this decision.

You want to actively defend my freedom? You're willing and capable of doing the job? Have at it. Those of us too pussy to put our lives on the line salute you.

END. OF. FUCKING. STORY.

Your "definitions" can go eat a sack, pal.

Mean Scenester,

Just how many people do you think really understand public policy as it is being formed only to find out what that policy means after it has already been enacted into law? Take for example Act 10. Once things are enacted into law it is tough to change things. I just think that people should understand what the government is doing by proposing this type of policy.